Of course Quebec can separate... (Quebec Separate)


Machjo
#91
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Who says I'm trying to hurt Quebec?

I've used tough love on my sons, does that mean I was trying to hurt them?

How is granting Quebec total freedom to form and direct their own currency irrational?

Hmmm... maybe there was a misunderstanding here. I thought you were saying that should Quebec decide to separate, that you would force Quebec to drop the Canadian currency. If that's not what you meant, then my apologies.

Now as for allowing Quebec to adopt its own currency, should it be stupid enough to do so,then no, it's not something worth fighting over. That said, seeing that Queebc would likely suffer far more than we would from a split in our currencies, we could bite the bullet much easier than Quebec could until it realises its folly and comes back to share a currency with us, assuming it doesn't have some other plan (adopt the US dollar, the euro, or some other shared currency?).

Should Quebec go that route, then for our own benefit, we'd probably want to look at our own currency base too, either by adopint the euro or preferably some kind of common North American currency ourselves.

Again, the cost of this would not be dramatic. A split currency would merely mean some inflation in the cost of Quebec imports to Canada and vice versa, but especially Canadian goods to Quebec. However, as with everything else, the poor pay the greatest price for such price hikes.

Quote:

What do trade wars have to do with you trying to compare street level currency exchange to trade?

I was merely making the point that there is no point adopting a policy that would hurt us just to spite Quebec.
 
CDNBear
#92
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Hmmm... maybe there was a misunderstanding here. I thought you were saying that should Quebec decide to separate, that you would force Quebec to drop the Canadian currency. If that's not what you meant, then my apologies.

No force, it would be part of the deal, for them to separate without issue.

Quote:

Now as for allowing Quebec to adopt its own currency, should it be stupid enough to do so,then no, it's not something worth fighting over. That said, seeing that Queebc would likely suffer far more than we would from a split in our currencies, we could bite the bullet much easier than Quebec could until it realises its folly and comes back to share a currency with us, assuming it doesn't have some other plan (adopt the US dollar, the euro, or some other shared currency?).

Likely the Euro.

Quote:

Should Quebec go that route, then for our own benefit, we'd probably want to look at our own currency base too, either by adopint the euro or preferably some kind of common North American currency ourselves.

Why? Our dollar has held its own quite well.

Quote:

Again, the cost of this would not be dramatic. A split currency would merely mean some inflation in the cost of Quebec imports to Canada and vice versa, but especially Canadian goods to Quebec. However, as with everything else, the poor pay the greatest price for such price hikes.

True, so they should think long and hard about the choices they make.

Quote:

I was merely making the point that there is no point adopting a policy that would hurt us just to spite Quebec.

I still don't fully accept that a Quebec currency, independent of the Canadian dollar, would hurt Canada, as much as you think. Since Quebec already trades without much restriction from Ottawa. Would we even notice the difference?

I think it would be negligible. Off set by payments to their share of the national debt.

Although our policy regarding aid to welfare states, would likely force us to feed them. Their country won't contain much in the way of resources, and they'd be land locked as well.
 
The Old Medic
Conservative
#93
If Qebec does go independent, there will be NO "Canadian" lands anywhere in Quebec. The new country would consists of all of the land currently in the Province of Quebec. You might not like it, but your opinion wouldn't matter at all. Quebec has the right to leave, as do all of the other provinces. They would have no claim to "Rupertsland", since it no longer exists, and hasn't existed since 1870. The lands of the former Rupertsland were divided up, and they would remain with the provinces that they are now a part of.

The rest of the stuff you claim to want to see would be negotiated.

Of course, this would directly lead to the total destruction of Canada within less than 50 years. The Atlantic Provinces are already restive, feel neglected by Canada, and they would peel off and join the USA fairly quickly.

Manitoba and Saskatchewan would be under even greater control by Ontario (the population would be so concentrated in Ontario, that its residents could override all of the other provinces combined), and they would also shortly decide to leave the Canadian confederation, and would likely become States.

That would leave Ontario, Nunavit, the Yukon and other NW Territories and British Columbia. B/C would not tolerate the almost complete domination of Ontario, and would most likely attempt to make it as a separate County (I predict that they would hold out for about 50-75 years, but their ever declining standard of living would either result in massive use of their natural resources (which would alienate much of their population), or they would have to eventually join the US.

That would essentially leave Ontario as a landlocked country, with right of passage up and down the St. Lawrence Seaway. It would be subject to the whims of Quebec, and would be almost totally dependent upon the US for its markets.

Yes indeed, let Quebec go. Then, see if I'm not right about what happens.
 
CDNBear
#94
Quote: Originally Posted by The Old Medic View Post

If Qebec does go independent, there will be NO "Canadian" lands anywhere in Quebec. The new country would consists of all of the land currently in the Province of Quebec. You might not like it, but your opinion wouldn't matter at all. Quebec has the right to leave, as do all of the other provinces. They would have no claim to "Rupertsland", since it no longer exists, and hasn't existed since 1870. The lands of the former Rupertsland were divided up, and they would remain with the provinces that they are now a part of.

The rest of the stuff you claim to want to see would be negotiated.

And of course the stuff you just negated can be negotiated too. Especially since the land wasn't HBC's to sell to Canada.

Quote:

That would essentially leave Ontario as a landlocked country, with right of passage up and down the St. Lawrence Seaway. It would be subject to the whims of Quebec, and would be almost totally dependent upon the US for its markets.

Hmmm, Lake Ontario, the St. Lawrence seaway, already under international control. Leaves Ontario landlocked how?
Last edited by CDNBear; Apr 16th, 2011 at 02:17 PM..
 
Machjo
#95
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

No force, it would be part of the deal, for them to separate without issue.

Likely the Euro.

Why? Our dollar has held its own quite well.

True, so they should think long and hard about the choices they make.

I still don't fully accept that a Quebec currency, independent of the Canadian dollar, would hurt Canada, as much as you think. Since Quebec already trades without much restriction from Ottawa. Would we even notice the difference?

I think it would be negligible. Off set by payments to their share of the national debt.

Although our policy regarding aid to welfare states, would likely force us to feed them. Their country won't contain much in the way of resources, and they'd be land locked as well.

Remember though that our population would suddenly shrink by about 1/4. I'm not saying it would be the end of the world, butit would weaken our currency at least somewhat.
 
CDNBear
#96
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Remember though that our population would suddenly shrink by about 1/4. I'm not saying it would be the end of the world, butit would weaken our currency at least somewhat.

Probably. Maybe even get it to drop below the US. That would be good for trade.
 
Mowich
Conservative
+2
#97
Sometimes, Bear.....I don't know whether you are dead serious or just pulling our legs.

This land, our land - Canadian's land - belongs to us as a whole - there is absolutely no way on earth that we should have to give our land up to anybody for any reason whatsoever. If there are people in our land who wish to separate then they may doing so by packing theirs bags and emigrating to whatever country is silly enough to take anyone who would be so stupid as to give up their home and native land for politics. IMMHO.
 
Machjo
#98
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Probably. Maybe even get it to drop below the US. That would be good for trade.

But bad for inflation. If the concern is with prices being too high, then let's just do what Sweden does: introduce co-determination laws and remove any mandated minimum wage.

Well, not so simple as that. The Swedish government also invests much on education and job training programmes for the unemployed too. but that combination would ensure quality products at low cost.
 
CDNBear
#99
Quote: Originally Posted by Mowich View Post

Sometimes, Bear.....I don't know whether you are dead serious or just pulling our legs.

half dozen of one, six of the other.

I sometimes just throw out ideas. I don't necessarily have a written in stone opinion on the matter, just an idea.

Then there's the whole duality of man thingy. I doubt I have a lock on the concept, but I know I have my own unique brand of understanding the two sides to myself. Some people call it hypocrisy, and I oft agree. Some understand where I'm coming from.

A simple example of this, would be the fact that I get very upset if I hit and kill an animal, with my car. Not for the damage to my car, but for the loss of life. While on the other hand, I can and do, take Deer, Turkey, Coyote, squirrels and gophers, with ease.

Quote:

This land, our land - Canadian's land - belongs to us as a whole - there is absolutely no way on earth that we should have to give our land up to anybody for any reason whatsoever. If there are people in our land who wish to separate then they may doing so by packing theirs bags and emigrating to whatever country is silly enough to take anyone who would be so stupid as to give up their home and native land for politics. IMMHO.

I can't argue with that. I fully understand where you are coming from.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

But bad for inflation.

Not always.
 
Mowich
Conservative
+1
#100
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

half dozen of one, six of the other.

Ah, my intuition was right.

Quote:

I sometimes just throw out ideas. I don't necessarily have a written in stone opinion on the matter, just an idea.

Good to know.

Quote:

Then there's the whole duality of man thingy. I doubt I have a lock on the concept, but I know I have my own unique brand of understanding the two sides to myself. Some people call it hypocrisy, and I oft agree. Some understand where I'm coming from.

Rather like being your own 'devil's advocate'. I have also heard it referred to as 'the benefit of the doubt.'

Quote:

A simple example of this, would be the fact that I get very upset if I hit and kill an animal, with my car. Not for the damage to my car, but for the loss of life. While on the other hand, I can and do, take Deer, Turkey, Coyote, squirrels and gophers, with ease.


One of the reasons I'm glad I live where I do is that it the lack of traffic on our roads out here gives me the chance to stop and swerve for critters without harming myself or others. I understand what you are saying.

Though I do not hunt, I do respect those who use the meat and are skilled enough to down the animal cleanly - and I am always thankful for a hand-out.

Quote:

I can't argue with that. I fully understand where you are coming from.

Thank you, Bear. I know I tend to wear the love I have for my country on my sleeve - my sister is always ribbing me about it - but I do love Canada, all of it with all of its wonderful people. Sure we have our differences - our divides - but we have shown and continue to show that we can put all that aside and if only for a moment in time, come together as Canadians.

Just attend any hockey game. LOL!
 
weaselwords
No Party Affiliation
#101
They could be a juggernaut in 10 years. Don't poo-poo PQ's resources there's quite a lot of untapped Gas Shale in the Gaspe & South Shore. Remember Harper just gave them 100% ownership of up to 2M barrels in Old Henry an undersea oil find in the St Lawerence Gulf
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#102
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

As for sharing a common currency, and especially citizenship, it's not about sticking it to the sovereignists but looking out for the people. Remember that those Quebecers with family in Ontario are likely among the most federalist of the bunch. Why hurt families just out of rage. Certainly reason must come before sentimentality and emotionalism.

sentimentality and emotion are the only reasons for this type of thing. There is no substantial benefit to separation unless you only want the good and refuse to take the bad. That's why Canada needs to continually point out the bad (ie- if Canada is divisible then Kweebeck is divisible). It's really a moot point though. There really is no significant desire to leave Canada in Kweebeck. There is a desire to suck off the tit of the rest of Canada. That is what the separatists are all about...keep the gravy train rolling. Unfortunately, we don't have politicians that are willing to shut it down.

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

As for a common currency, separate currencies are essentially a tax of sorts. Let's not kid ourselves that even with NAFTA for example, currency traders and brokers still take a cut in all currency transactions. Do you honestly think that when you use Canadian dollars across the border or vice versa that the company isn't raising the conversion rate to compensate for the inconvenience to them?

Agreed. Only those that do not understand basic economics would argue against a common currency.

Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

And why would we care what another country does about its own overhead?

He wasn't talking about countries, he was talking about airlines. Less overhead means a better chance at competing. Stuff that helps European carriers to better compete with NA carriers, gives them a competitive advantage. Differences on rules and/or restrictions governing the movement on goods, services and capital affect productivity. That's wht governments have been trying to ease restrictions for years. It's basic economics.
 
Machjo
#103
Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

sentimentality and emotion are the only reasons for this type of thing. There is no substantial benefit to separation unless you only want the good and refuse to take the bad. That's why Canada needs to continually point out the bad (ie- if Canada is divisible then Kweebeck is divisible). It's really a moot point though. There really is no significant desire to leave Canada in Kweebeck. There is a desire to suck off the tit of the rest of Canada. That is what the separatists are all about...keep the gravy train rolling. Unfortunately, we don't have politicians that are willing to shut it down.

Don't be so sure of that. I've had exchanges with sovereignists and you'd be surprised at how much they can disagree with one another. Just to give some idea:

Absolute sovereignists (i.e. the so-called independentistes).

Sovereignty-associationists.

Those who believe that trying to milk canada is a good strategy to weaken Canada's resolve to keep Quebec in confederation.

Those who want some form of sovereignty but still believe they should look out for the best interests of Canada while they're in it,even if only out of self-interest, though some might actually even care about Canada, even if only a foreign country in their minds.

Etc. etc. etc.
 
Cannuck
No Party Affiliation
#104
Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

Absolute sovereignists ...

....are such a small minority they are, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant. Even Duceppe is not an absolute sovereignist.
 
Machjo
+1
#105
Also, some sovereignists are so owing to xenophobia, while others are so out of a belief in extreme decentralization but relatively open borders (which probably roughly reflects absolute sovereignists and sovereignty-associationists to some degree). Needless to say that in a sovereign Quebec, those two groups would go head to head, the xenophobes wanting complete isolation and the more cosmopolitan elements trying to maintain more open borders. But the sovereignty movement is no more homogeneous than the federalist movement. Just compare decentralists, centralists, and internationalists even among federalists. In fact, there are certainly internationalists among sovereignists too.

Quote: Originally Posted by Cannuck View Post

....are such a small minority they are, for all intents and purposes, irrelevant. Even Duceppe is not an absolute sovereignist.

I'm sure any sovereignist with any sense will oppose absolute sovereignty.
 
The Old Medic
Conservative
#106
The Native peoples held the land before the Europeans. Since the government of Canada does not recognize their rights, what on earth makes you think that they would if Quebec were to go independent?

Of course the HBC owned that land, according to British law. They in turn GAVE it to Great Britain, which in turn gave it to Canada It wasn't sold, per se, it was granted. Of course, HBC benefited, but not by direct sale of the land.

My 2nd great grandfather lost his farm in the process of this transaction. Manitoba just confiscated it, after he had farmed it for over 30 years. He was give 3 days to leave, was not allowed to take his animals, his farm equipment, his furniture, or anything of value except for a wagon, two horses and the harness to hitch them up, and the families personal possessions.

They were each given "Manitoba Script", supposedly good for 160 acres of land. Each family members land was isolated from any other family members (meaning the family would have had to split up to actually take it) Speculators bought up most of that "Script", for pennies on the dollar, because ti was absolutely worthless to the Métis.

Cdn Bear, if you are going to use Canadian history in your posts, it would help if you actually KNEW it.

I am Métis, and proud of that fact.
 
CDNBear
#107
Quote: Originally Posted by The Old Medic View Post

The Native peoples held the land before the Europeans.

Well at least you got that right.
Quote:

Since the government of Canada does not recognize their rights, what on earth makes you think that they would if Quebec were to go independent?

The law.

Quote:

Of course the HBC owned that land, according to British law. They in turn GAVE it to Great Britain, which in turn gave it to Canada It wasn't sold, per se, it was granted. Of course, HBC benefited, but not by direct sale of the land.

It was sold for the sum of 300,000 pound sterling, to the Dominion of Canada, under the Rupert Lands Act of 1868, an act of British Parliament.

Quote:

My 2nd great grandfather lost his farm in the process of this transaction. Manitoba just confiscated it, after he had farmed it for over 30 years. He was give 3 days to leave, was not allowed to take his animals, his farm equipment, his furniture, or anything of value except for a wagon, two horses and the harness to hitch them up, and the families personal possessions.

I have stories like that in my families history too dude.

Quote:

They were each given "Manitoba Script", supposedly good for 160 acres of land. Each family members land was isolated from any other family members (meaning the family would have had to split up to actually take it) Speculators bought up most of that "Script", for pennies on the dollar, because ti was absolutely worthless to the Métis.

Ya, the Metis have a lock on getting screwed.

Quote:

Cdn Bear, if you are going to use Canadian history in your posts, it would help if you actually KNEW it.

Feel free to fact check the part where I clearly express a greater knowledge of Canadian history then your anecdotal sob stories.

Quote:

I am Métis, and proud of that fact.

That and a library card will give you access to more knowledge than you can imagine, you should try it.
 
englishcanadian
#108
i am tired of all this separation talk. I am an ethnic English speaking Canadian that was born and raised in montreal. My whole life i was terrorized and told to speak french., we are in Quebec blah blah. I love living here but the ignorance that some Quebecers have upsets me. Don;t you realize that we have an advantage here. We have the opportunity to learn and speak two languages. Why close your eyes to enhancing your possibilities learning languages are a bonus. I speak four languages and i am proud, french being one of them. Quebecers should stop talking separation and start taking English classes learn the international language , everyone speaks English no matter where you go. Why deprive yourselves of communicating and travelling. There are so many possiblites out there.Stop Quebec is part of Canada and many Quebecers fail to remember that.


A fellow Canadian who just wants to feel like im at home, here in Quebec.
 
petros
#109
World War Cree!
 
cranky
#110
Quote: Originally Posted by gerryh View Post

agree with everything except Celine, she should automatically retain her Canadian citizenship.

But only if they pass à law that makes it illégal for our wives to drag us out to the concerts
 

Similar Threads

398
Quebec shouldn't separate from Canada
by data-unlimited | Jan 20th, 2010
315
Should Quebec separate from Canada?
by sine000 | Jan 16th, 2010
32
Images separate people
by china | May 11th, 2009
5
50
The Quebec "nation" should separate...
by masalla | Nov 26th, 2004